Jul 28, 2015 | News
The ICJ today expressed its serious concerns about the trial, conviction and sentencing to death of Saif al Islam Gadhafi, Abdallah al Senussi, as well as seven officials of the Gadhafi regime by the Tripoli Criminal Court.
The ICJ is deeply concerned that the trial of the officials of the Gadhafi regime failed to scrupulously respect the guarantees of fair trial as required by Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Libya is a state party.
The imposition of the death penalty following such an unfair trial violates the right to life.
The ICJ opposes the death penalty in all circumstances as a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
“Libyan authorities must comply with their obligations under international law, refrain from implementing the death sentences against Saif al Islam and 8 former Libyan officials, and ensure that all defendants are retried before an independent and impartial tribunal and in full compliance with international fair trial standards,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the MENA programme at the ICJ.
“The trial is a lost opportunity to make a break from decades of unfair trials in Libya. It is also a missed opportunity to establish the truth about the legacy of alleged gross human rights violations committed during the 40-year reign of Moammar Gadhafi, including summary executions, enforced disappearances, torture and other ill-treatment, and arbitrary detention,” Benarbia added.
Fair trial violations included severe limitations on the defendants’ rights to access a lawyer, to adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence, and to be represented and communicate with a lawyer of their own choosing, the ICJ says.
23 other defendants were sentenced to prison terms ranging from life imprisonment to 5 years.
The charges against the officials included: “murdering and bombarding civilians during the 2011 revolution,” “inciting, participating and assisting in the murder of Libyans,” “recruiting mercenaries and establishing brigades and then providing them with weapons, uniforms and money to fight the protesters.”
Some defendants, including Saif al Islam Gadhafi, who continues to be held in militia custody in Zintan, were not present during the trial, though were connected by video link at times.
The ICJ is also concerned that the defendants’ rights to appeal are limited in numerous ways.
Convictions by the Tripoli Criminal Court will be reviewed before the cassation chamber of the Supreme Court.
The chamber only examines the proper application of the law by the lower courts and does not review the merits of the case.
In accordance with Libya’s obligations under international law, including the ICCPR, the defendants have the right to have their convictions and sentences reviewed by an independent higher tribunal.
Such review must concern both the legal and material aspects of the defendants’ convictions and sentences.
The ICJ is concerned that political and security instability in Libya continues to undermine the ability of the judiciary to function and administer justice independently and impartially.
In reviewing the situation in the context of the Saif al Islam Gadhafi case, the International Criminal Court (ICC), expressed concern about the inability of the judicial and governmental authorities to obtain testimony or to provide witness protection.
It found that Libya was unable to conduct a fair prosecution and trial of Gadhafi.
The ICC issued a warrant for his arrest to answer allegation of crimes against humanity.
The ICJ calls on the Libyan authorities to annul the unfair proceedings; to fully cooperate with, and surrender Saif al Islam Gadhafi to the ICC; and to ensure the fair re-trial of the other accused.
Contact:
Doireann Ansbro, Associate Legal Adviser, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +216 71 841 701, e: doireann.ansbro(a)icj.org
Libya-Saif Gadhafi sentence-News-Press releases-2015-ARA (full text of press releases in Arabic, PDF)
Photo: Ahmed Jadallah / Reuters
Jul 24, 2015 | News
The Cambodian Senate’s approval of the draft law this morning brings the Government one step closer to having the power to repressively monitor and restrict the registration and activities of associations and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), the ICJ said today.
According to information provided to the ICJ, the Senate approved the draft Law on Associations and NGOs (LANGO) at approximately 10:00am local time this morning. Opposition Senators boycotted the vote.
“The draft law, once promulgated, will severely restrict the ability of members of civil society to exercise their rights to freedom of association and expression which Cambodia has a duty to protect under its international obligations,” said Kingsley Abbott, the ICJ’s International Legal Adviser.
“The regrettable irony is that in approving this draft law, which contains the stated aims of protecting civil society interests and promoting their partnership with public authorities, the Government has totally disregarded civil society’s calls for consultation and for the draft law to be withdrawn,” he added.
On 13 July 2015, the Cambodian National Assembly adopted the draft law after 55 members of the opposition party, the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP), decided to boycott the vote.
The draft law will be promulgated once it receives the King’s signature, which is largely a symbolic step under the Cambodian Constitution.
The draft law’s most problematic provisions include:
- requirement of excessive documentation for the registration of both domestic and international associations and NGOs;
- arbitrary powers given to the Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Foreign Affairs to deny or revoke registration on the grounds that an association or NGO’s activities endanger public security, stability and order, constitute a threat to national security, national unity or the good culture, traditions and customs of Cambodian national society;
- the requirement that associations and NGOs adhere to a stance of neutrality vis à vis political parties, and provisions that allow for the suspension and dissolution of groups that violate this requirement;
- the requirement that associations and NGOs report to several ministries and submit an annual report summing up work activities and finances; and
- the inclusion of sweeping provisions for the suspension and dissolution of domestic and international associations and NGOs.
Background
The draft law, once promulgated, will bring Cambodia into non-compliance with international law and standards.
As a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Cambodia must guarantee the rights to freedom of expression and association and ensure that no restrictions are put in place except under the strict conditions set out in articles 19(3) and 22(2) of the ICCPR. These conditions clearly have not been met under the terms of the draft LANGO.
In addition, Article 2 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders provides that each “State has a prime responsibility and duty to protect, promote and implement all human rights and fundamental freedoms, inter alia, by adopting such steps as may be necessary to create all conditions necessary in the social, economic, political and other fields, as well as the legal guarantees required to ensure that all persons under its jurisdiction, individually and in association with others, are able to enjoy all those rights and freedoms in practice.
Article 8 states that everyone “has the right, individually and in association with others, to have effective access…to participation in the government of his or her country and in the conduct of public affairs…[including] the right, to submit to governmental bodies and agencies and organizations concerned with public affairs criticism and proposals for improving their functioning and to draw attention to any aspect of their work that may hinder or impede the promotion, protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms.”
In June and July 2015, the ICJ and other international human rights groups sent joint letters to the Government of Cambodia, including to Prime Minister Hun Sen and the President of the National Assembly, urging for the withdrawal of the draft law.
Contact:
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ’s International Legal Adviser, t: +66 94 470 1345, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Jul 23, 2015 | News
The ICJ today called on the Tunisian authorities to amend the deeply flawed draft Counter-Terrorism and Money Laundering law with a view to ensuring its full compliance with international standards.
“Tunisian authorities have obligations under international law to protect individuals under their jurisdiction against all acts of terrorism,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at the ICJ.
“At the same time, all counter-terrorism measures must fully respect human rights guarantees and the rule of law,” he added.
The draft Counter-Terrorism and Money Laundering law, revised since it was first introduced last year, was revived following a series of attacks against members of the security forces and the army and the deadly Bardo Museum (photo) attack on 18 March 2015.
In response to the killing of 38 tourists in Sousse on 26 June and the following declaration of a state of emergency on 4 July 2015 by the Tunisian President, the Tunisian Assembly of the People’s Representatives has accelerated the process of discussing and adopting the Draft Law.
The Draft Law criminalizes a wide range of acts through overbroad and imprecise definitions of terrorism and terrorism-related acts.
Such definitions could potentially have the effect of criminalizing activities not actually related to terrorism, or even the lawful and peaceful exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms, including the right to freedom of expression, the ICJ says.
The ICJ is particularly concerned that the draft law grants, in its article 68, immunity from criminal prosecution for security forces, outside cases of self-defence, when using force in the course of their duties.
This provision requires amendment to ensure that it does not immunize use of force that violates the right to life in violation of international law and standards, including for instance intentional use of lethal force when it is not strictly unavoidable in order to protect life, the Geneva-based organization adds.
“The draft law should not dilute the specificity of terrorist acts by drawing ordinary crimes within the scope of the counterterrorism legislation, nor should it be used as a tool to shield members of security forces from accountability in cases of human rights violations committed in the course of their functions,” Benarbia said.
Furthermore, the bill contains provisions that could potentially result in undue prosecution of whistleblowers and journalists, or otherwise disproportionally limit the freedoms of expression and information in violation of international law, the ICJ notes.
A number of offences under the Draft Law are punishable with the death penalty.
The ICJ opposes the death penalty in all circumstances as a violation of the right to life and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
The Draft Law also creates an exceptional regime for police custody, allowing the prosecutor to order up to a period of 15 days of detention (articles 37 and 39) without access to a lawyer or a judge, in violation of the right to liberty, fair trial guarantees, and guarantees for the prevention of torture and other abuses in detention.
It further provides for extensive infringements of the right to privacy through various forms of surveillance, and potentially breaches lawyers’ duties of confidentiality in ways that have not been justified.
“In reviewing and approving the Draft Law, members of the Assembly must ensure that it is fully in line with Tunisia’s obligations under international law, including those relating to the right to life, to liberty and to a fair trial,” Benarbia added.
Contact
Theo Boutruche, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +96 170 888 961 ; e: theo.boutruche@icj.org
Tunisia-Counter Terrorism Draft Law-2015-ARA (Full text in Arabic, PDF)
Jul 22, 2015 | News
Ante los procesos penales que ha iniciado la Comisión internacional contra la Impunidad en Guatemala (CICIG) en el país, la CIJ expresa su absoluto apoyo al Comisionado de la CICIG Iván Velásquez por la batalla que está librando por la depuración del Estado de Guatemala y contra la corrupción.
Todos los casos develados por la CICIG están demostrando los niveles de impunidad existentes, debido a la persistencia de diferentes estructurales criminales, que cuentan con participación de altos funcionarios de Gobierno.
La CIJ lamenta que un partido político esté promoviendo acciones en contra de la CICIG y manifestaciones de diversa índole, para desestabilizar al país y evitar que sus miembros y candidatos sean investigados.
La CIJ se permite recordar que los actos de corrupción afectan seriamente la vida de toda la población guatemalteca, el uso adecuado de los recursos públicos en beneficio de las mayorías y corroe los cimientos básicos del Estado de derecho.
Ramón Cadena, Director de la CIJ para Centro América, declaró: “Hacemos un llamado a todos los partidos políticos, para que apoyen la gestión de la CICIG y faciliten toda la información que coadyuve a las investigaciones que la CICIG está llevando a cabo para erradicar la corrupción en el país.”
Jul 22, 2015 | News
The Indian government should stay the imminent execution of Yakub Memon and commute his death sentence, said the ICJ today. The call comes after the Supreme Court dismissed his curative petition on 21 July.
Yakub Memon was convicted and sentenced to death for a range of offences, including conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, in connection with the deadly terrorist attacks in Mumbai in 1993, which killed more than 250 people and injured more than 700.
A court has authorized his execution for 30 July 2015, although Memon has submitted another mercy petition, according to media reports.
“The 1993 terrorist attacks in Mumbai were heinous criminal acts that devastated the lives of the victims and their families, and amounted to massive human rights abuses,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Director for Asia and the Pacific.
“But the death penalty is itself a denial of the right to life and the freedom from cruel and inhuman punishment. Executing Memon only adds to the sum total of inhumanity,” he added.
Yakub Memon was initially sentenced to death by a court set up under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 (TADA) in July 2007.
Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision was the latest in a series of denials of relief.
The Indian Supreme Court confirmed his conviction and sentence on appeal in March 2013.
Memon then filed a mercy petition before the Indian president, who denied it in April 2014.
He subsequently filed a review petition challenging his sentence before the Indian Supreme Court, which rejected the petition on 9 April 2015.
A court set up under the TADA convicted Yakub Memon for his involvement in the terror attacks in Mumbai in 1993.
The Indian government repealed the TADA in 1995, after sustained national and international criticism for its compatibility with human rights law, particularly the right to fair trial.
Provisions of the TADA defined offences vaguely and broadly; reversed the presumption of innocence in certain instances; allowed for long periods of pre-charge detention; made certain “confessions” to specific police officials admissible as evidence; and limited the right to appeal by only allowing appeals to the Supreme Court.
Several provisions of the TADA were later included in the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), which was introduced in 2002 and repealed in 2004.
Subsequent amendments introduced some provisions of the POTA and TADA into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which remains in force.
Yakub Memon was tried under provisions of the TADA as it was the law in force in 1993, when the terrorist attacks in Mumbai occurred.
India is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial as well as the right to life and freedom from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
“India, consistent with its international legal obligations, may not impose the death penalty in situations where important safeguards to ensure a fair trial have not been met,” Zarifi said.
The UN Human Rights Committee, the supervisory authority for the ICCPR, has emphasized: “In cases of trials leading to the imposition of the death penalty scrupulous respect of the guarantees of fair trial is particularly important. The imposition of a sentence of death upon conclusion of a trial, in which the provisions of article 14 of the Covenant have not been respected, constitutes a violation of the right to life.”
The ICJ expresses its solidarity with the victims of the 1993 attack, and their families.
The ICJ opposes capital punishment in all cases without exception.
The death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
In line with the present international trend, the ICJ calls on India impose an official moratorium on the death penalty, with a view to abolishing the death penalty.
India resumed executions in 2012, after a gap of eight years. Since November 2012, two people have been executed, Ajmal Kasab and Afzal Guru. They were both charged and convicted for their role in terrorist attacks.
In December 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution, for the fifth time since 2007, emphasizing that the use of the death penalty undermines human dignity and calling on those countries that maintain the death penalty to establish a moratorium on its use with a view towards its abolition.
Some 117 UN Member States, a wide majority, voted in favor of a worldwide moratorium on executions as a step towards abolition of the death penalty.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Jul 22, 2015 | News
El genocidio perpetrado contra población Ixil de Guatemala será debatido en el segundo juicio seguido en contra del ex Presidente de facto Efraín Ríos Montt y el ex Director de inteligencia José Mauricio Rodríguez Sánchez.
El juicio está por reiniciarse el 23 de julio. Lamentablemente, este segundo juicio ya se ha visto afectado por diferentes hechos, que a continuación describimos.
La recusación de la jueza Presidenta del Tribunal B de Mayor Riesgo, debido a la redacción de su tesis doctoral sobre el delito de Genocidio, no debió de haber sido aceptada por no existir una causa razonable, ya que dicho trabajo de tesis se relaciona con su formación académica especializada en justicia de transición.
Posteriormente, la jueza fue sustituida por un juez que ha evidenciado relaciones de amistad a través de las redes sociales con uno de los abogados defensores del acusado Ríos Montt (photo).
Nuevamente la defensa busca que por lo menos un juez “amigo” integre el tribunal. A ello se suma el hecho de que recientemente el Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Forenses (INACIF) emitió un informe que hace referencia al supuesto problema de salud física y mental del acusado Ríos Montt.
La CIJ de la manera más enérgica expresa que estos actos son parte de una estrategia que tiene como propósito eludir la acción de la justicia.
La CIJ considera que ello constituye una violación al derecho de las víctimas al acceso a la justicia y contra el derecho a un juicio justo, libre de intromisiones de todo actor externo.
La CIJ se permite recordar al Poder Judicial que el combate a la impunidad de acuerdo con los estándares internacionales la justicia debe obedecer a tres imperativos: juzgar y sancionar a los responsables de graves crímenes, como el genocidio; satisfacer el derecho de las víctimas a conocer lo sucedido y obtener reparación integral; y fortalecer la independencia de las autoridades judiciales.
El supuesto problema de salud física y mental del acusado Ríos Montt podría ser solo una simulación, para evitar que sea nuevamente llevado a juicio.
Al respecto, la CIJ denuncia las acciones violatorias del debido proceso realizadas una vez más, por la jueza Carol Patricia Flores, quien ordenó se le practicasen exámenes médicos a Ríos Montt, para averiguar acerca de su estado de salud físico y mental.
Esta orden de la jueza Flores es ilegal, debido a que el proceso ya se encontraba a cargo del tribunal de Sentencia Penal B de Mayor Riesgo y ella carecía de competencia para ordenar tal medida.
La CIJ insta a los jueces a ejercer su poder de contralores del proceso penal, rechazando todos los actos de litigio de mala fe que sean promovidos por la defensa de los procesados.
Se requiere que los jueces a cargo del juicio se encuentren libres de toda presión externa que pueda intimidarlos en su función.
Para garantizar su independencia deben contar con el apoyo de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, quien debe velar por su seguridad y por el desarrollo del proceso en un marco de respeto.
Ramón Cadena, Director de la CIJ para Centro América, expresó: “Otra vez estamos ante una serie de medidas dilatorias, que demuestran que existen jueces que se prestan a promover la impunidad de graves violaciones a los derechos humanos.”
